Tricking Shutterstock - DPChallenge Forums

01/22/2005 10:54:38 AM · #1

We all know shutterstock won't accept any pictures taken with a lower than 2 mega pixel camera. Blown-up small pictures won't work either because they check for grain, quality ect.

As a little test, just to see if my 1.4 mega pixel camera could pass I submitted a few pictures. I don't want them to make money, I don't have enough quality 'shutterstocking' pictures to make significant money other than a few cents. I resized my biggest pictures and ran them through Neat Image just a little to get rid of the grain created.

I submitted 10 pictures and 5 were approved. I was expecting 0. So this is to all you below 2.0 megapixels... Try it out!

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/22/2005 11:12:14 AM · #2

Joey, Joey, Joey. By trying to cheat someone else you are cheating yourself. I admire your creativity and your ambition, but by pretending your pictures meet the qualifications to upload to shutterstock, you are putting everyone on this site at risk. By announcing to the world that you cheat, you are losing respect. By posting this, you are telling Jon, who does read these forums, that you are a cheap little punk that doesn't care about how your actions affect others. So. What if Jon decides that everyone here cheats? Wouldn't that ruin a good relationship for everyone? What have you gained out of the deal?

frisca

Nikon D70

01/22/2005 11:28:10 AM · #3

I don't think he's cheating. His photos were analyzed and accepted. I imagine they have their megapixel rule and their checking for grain so that the quality will meet standards and they won't have to wade through photos that are highly likely not to meet their standards. If you submit a photo that will meet their standards, how is that cheating regardless of what MP your camera is?

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/22/2005 12:06:25 PM · #4

Were his pictures taken with a 2 megapixel camera? That is a qualification. They made the rules. The rules are written to be followed for whatever reason they want. They didn't say take a picture at whatever resolution and upload it and if you res it up that is ok unless you get caught. It's the same as this site. We are required to submit a picture taken whitin a certain time frame. Just because each picture doesn't go thru the dq process, are you saying the rule should be ignored?

frisca

Nikon D70

01/22/2005 12:27:12 PM · #5

It is a false comparison to compare their photo acceptance standards with our DQ rules. Their issues are quality, and if you can meet that with the proper attention to your post processing, why call the boy a CHEAT? I think you are being unnecessarily harsh.

FranziskaLang

Nikon D100

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Nikon

01/22/2005 12:27:38 PM · #6

Atually, this is what it says in the rules: "Images must be at least 2MP (2 Megapixels/2 Million Pixels). To calculate the number of pixels in a photo - multiply the width by the height. For example - a photo that's 1700x1300 is 2.21 million pixels."

It does not say the image has to be taken with a 2mp camera.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/22/2005 12:39:28 PM · #7

OK. I was a bit harsh. It was the title that inspired me. He didn't say "I did such a good job with these that they got accepted even though they were originally taken at less than 2mp." He said, "I tricked Shutterstock." Tricking a business is cheating a business in my particular vocabulary. Maybe I'm the only person that thinks that way. Besides that, they do upsample with gf after they accept pictures. So if you have people upsampling before they upload the pictures could become unattractive after they go thru an additional resize. If a few people buy those pictures and the quality is bad, that reflects on the whole website and might discourage them from paying to download next month. Comparing the two sites is unfair. After all, Jon and everyone that contributes to that site are actually looking to make a little money and here all that is involved is a virtual ribbon.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/22/2005 01:30:52 PM · #8

It is not cheating, although calling it a "trick" makes it seem so. Franziska is correct -- their standards are based on the image size and photo quality, not the camera used. When I first posted some pictures there I asked Jon, and was told that some upsampling to meet the minimum image size was OK, as long as the photo quality is likewise OK.

A good, clean, uncropped 2MP photo only needs a 5 or 10% upsampling to meet the Shutterstock requirements.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/22/2005 02:11:55 PM · #9

So how much would one have to resize a picture taken with, say, a Oly D-600L to reach the qualifications? 50% or 100%. Is that considered "some" resizing or a significant amount of resizing? What would a large amount of resizing be? His camera produces pictures that are 1280x1040.
Joey. You are not a cheat. I'm sorry for calling you a punk. What you are doing is wonderful. I hope you get tons of pictures accepted. I'm on iStock.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/22/2005 02:23:55 PM · #10

That seems like it would need about 50% enlargement, which might/might not work. A lot of it is image-dependent. You can enlarge a sunset more than a portrait.

I believe I have one image accepted where I had to crop an already-undersized image, and enlarged it with the step interpolation (something like 8 x 5%) to almost double the original.

That said, I don't recommend routinely submitting enlarged photos, even with a 50% acceptance ratio. I use it when I have a really worthy/useable shot where there's no other choice, and it can't be re-shot. I try to avoid using my 2MP camera if I think I might use the shots for stock.

nsbca7

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

01/22/2005 02:31:00 PM · #11

All this for 20 cents.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/22/2005 02:48:44 PM · #12

Originally posted by nsbca7:

All this for 20 cents.

Yup -- 20 cents more than anyone had offered for that photo before.

I suppose you don't think people should set up their tape deck in the garage and try and sell cassettes of their band, either.

Presumably, for Shutterstock to be successful, they will need to have identified a viable untapped market niche, not try and compete with Corbis. I think the same is true for the contributors. I will never have time, equipment, talent, or drive to be a truly successful stock photographer, at least until I'm able to retire. If I can learn the trade part-time and pick up a few bucks (they are rather like getting a nice comment at DPC after all) along the way, what's the harm in that?

I think the whole Managed vs RF stock is a mainly false dichotomy, probably promoted by the designer end to force prices down even further

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

01/22/2005 04:38:03 PM · #13

Yes, that's right. I did do it for 20 cents. But do you know what else I did it for? If you havn't read my message clearly I did it as a test.

FranziskaLang, and all the others are exactly right, the minimum is 2 megapixels but that does not nessicarily mean that it had to be taken with a 2 megapixel camera.

This was exactly what my test proved, for all the other people who love photography but are stuck with a "poor quality" camera. Like me, those people are capable of submitting to stock web sites and if they contribute enough they can make a few bucks.

For those of you wondering my pictures when first uploaded are 1280 pixels by 1024 pixels. Multiplyed together, my camera is actually 1.3, not the written 1.4 in the manual and on the camera. Tsk tsk, Olympus! :-D

I see pcody has apologized, good. Afraid a 15 year old was stealing your 20 cents?
*Blows kiss

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/22/2005 04:47:15 PM · #14

Joey,

Here's the thing; you labeled this thread in a very inflammatory manner. In fact, you did NOT "trick" shutterstock; you uploaded a picture of 2-or-more megapixels, they found it acceptable, they posted it.

Where's the "trick" there? The picture meets their criteria!

Yes, it was a good test. Yes, it "proves" to people with less-than-stellar cameras that they can get images into shutterstock. This is great.

But why didn't you title the thread "Meeting Shutterstock Standards Via Upsampling" or somethign equally descriptive of what you did?

Don't get me wrong, you done great. It's just that you had people all barking up the wrong tree.

Ah, youth....

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-01-22 16:47:30.

01/22/2005 04:58:26 PM · #15

Joey. I don't use Shutterstock. That's the beauty of it for me. Like I said. I hope you get lots of your pictures accepted. Earn lots of dimes and buy yourself a camera that will meet the standards without having to upsize it.

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

01/22/2005 05:39:51 PM · #16

Originally posted by bear_music:

But why didn't you title the thread "Meeting Shutterstock Standards Via Upsampling" or somethign equally descriptive of what you did?

"Meeting Shutterstock Standards Via Unsampling" is boring, would you really be more inclined to post here? I'm not saying name every thread "President Bush Assasinated" just to get people to come there but at the time of the post a 'trick' is really what I did. See, you can learn new tricks to get your under 2.0 megapixel pictures into shutterstock fairly. How do you learn these tricks? You try it out yourself or learn from my tricky-trick test.

I appreciate the input bear_music and all the other great critiques you do, but let's not turn this thread into a critique on the word 'trick.' :p

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/22/2005 05:59:29 PM · #17

Well, Joey;

I don't really give a hoot what you call it... I just thought, being as how you were being JUMPED on for destroying the integrity of our site etc etc, that maybe a little consideration of your thread title might be in order next time you come up with something...

I repeat, "Ah, youth..." You (based on what you just said) created that title for the express purpose of stirring up interest by misrepresenting (in provocative terms) what you'd actually done, and you succeeded, so what the hey? Nevr mind that what yoiu did wasn't "trick" shutterstock, but rather find a way to upgrade an image that didn't meet their standards so that it would, in fact, meet those standards... It may be "semantics" to you, but then I earn a living as an editor, so semantics are key to me...

You know I love ya, right?

Robt.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

01/22/2005 06:17:14 PM · #18

Originally posted by bear_music:

Well, Joey;
You know I love ya, right?

Robt.

Ah!
This must be some sort of trick!

LOL

I agree... The thread title is a little bit misleading. Now, let's discuss who now wants to enter shutterstock or other stock sites with under-2.0's. :-)

GinaRothfels

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

01/22/2005 06:29:16 PM · #19

I don't really see that there's much difference between the title of this thread and some of the newspaper headlines on posters in the street. At least, not where I come from. They're tricking the public into spending their money, which is a lot worse than trying to attract attention to a forum thread.

Well done, Joey. If you can make some money with a 1.3 megapixel camera, you deserve it.